Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Owner Objections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oceanfront owners tell Southampton proposed perpetual easements, $6,400 offer ‘facially inadequate’
Summary
Oceanfront property owners and their attorneys at Southampton's June 3 hearing objected to proposed perpetual storm‑damage reduction easements, saying appraisal materials were withheld, pre‑existing beach access easements were not addressed, and that one owner's $6,400 offer for a high‑value parcel is inadequate; they requested clearer valuation, easement treatment, and statutory authority before condemnation proceeds.
Southampton — Several oceanfront property owners and their counsel sharply challenged the Town of Southampton’s notice of condemnation at a June 3 Article 2 hearing for FIMP Contract 3, arguing the official record does not adequately identify affected interests or valuation methods and urging the town to withhold any findings until those issues are resolved.
Attorney Martha Riker, representing 124 Dune Road LLC, said her client does not oppose coastal storm‑risk reduction in principle but objected to the proposed perpetual beach storm‑damage reduction easement over roughly 21,000 square feet of her client’s property. Riker said the town’s written offer of $6,400 is “facially inadequate” for a parcel the lawyer said was purchased for approximately $22 million and that the town has not provided the appraisal report or comparables needed to evaluate the offer.
Nut graf: Property owners’ counsel sought explicit answers about whether pre‑existing private beach access easements will be extinguished, subordinated, or separately compensated; whether existing elevated walkways and reconstruction obligations under village code are permitted under the town’s draft easement; and under what statutory authority the town seeks to condemn permanent easements within an incorporated village.
Key claims from owners: Counsel for multiple owners entered written submissions and urged the town to explain how it will identify and value subordinate easement interests, treat reconstruction and maintenance of access walkways that village code requires owners to maintain, and account for possible remapping of the coastal erosion (Seahaw) line that could further restrict private development and affect compensation calculations.
What the record shows: Town presenters described the need for easements because the project places engineered beach and dune elements on private land, and they entered into the record the final environmental impact statement, Corps reports and project partnership agreements. Presenters said the borrow sand matches existing beach material and that the project is expected to reduce overwash and protect bay‑side wetlands; however, they did not provide appraisals or a detailed valuation methodology during the hearing.
Requests and next steps: Riker and counsel for other owners asked the town to identify all pre‑existing easement holders in the acquisition area, confirm how those holders will be treated (condemnee, compensated interest or otherwise), produce appraisal materials supporting any offers, clarify whether owners may maintain, repair, replace and reconstruct lawful beach access walkways after FIMP work, and state the enabling statute or agreements authorizing condemnation within the incorporated village. They said they reserve all rights to seek additional compensation and judicial review.
The hearing record remains open for written comment until July 3, 2026. Town officials said affected owners may request acquisition maps and may review exhibits at Town Hall by appointment.
